Filed 6/30/17 In re Gabriel W. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


In re GABRIEL W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GABRIEL W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A150800

(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. JUV82946-JW)

After denial of his motion to suppress evidence against him, Gabriel W. admitted a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. Gabriel was made a ward of the court and placed on probation in his parents’ home.
Assigned counsel submitted a Wende brief, certifying an inability to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming Gabriel was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
At approximately 2:45 a.m. on February 28, 2016, the San Bruno Police Department received a citizen report of three juveniles in dark clothing walking down the street in a residential neighborhood, looking into cars. San Bruno Police Officer Tamy Ledesma responded to the reported location on the 500 block of Elm Street, near Jenevein Avenue. The officer did not initially see anyone matching the description of the juveniles and continued to travel in the direction the juveniles had been seen walking.
Eight to 10 minutes after receiving the initial report, and approximately half a mile away at San Bruno Park, Ledesma observed a single vehicle in the parking lot with the front passenger side door open. Three individuals were around or in the car wearing dark hooded sweatshirts with the hoods over their heads. One person was hunched inside the vehicle and the other two were standing outside. As the patrol car approached, the individual inside the car exited, and all three began walking away. Ledesma shined the patrol vehicle spotlight to illuminate the area and to get the individuals to stop. Ledesma parked approximately 15 feet away from the individuals as they walked from the car. At this point, Ledesma determined the individuals, one of whom the officer identified as Gabriel, were juveniles “based on how young they looked.” While approaching the juveniles, Ledesma called out: “Hey fellows, what’s going on tonight?” Gabriel and his companions continued to walk away from the officer. After the first request was ignored, Ledesma called out again: “Hey, can I talk to you guys?” At this point, all three individuals stopped and two of them, including Gabriel, turned and looked at Ledesma. Ledesma asked the boys about the car and Gabriel responded that it belonged to a friend. Gabriel did not know the friend’s name or address. When asked where they were going, Gabriel said “a friend’s house,” but he was unable to name the friend or say where he lived. Gabriel told Ledesma that he was 14 years old.
Other officers responded to the scene. Because one of the other individuals continued to move and put his hands into his pockets, despite instructions not to do so, all three individuals were handcuffed.
Ledesma asked Gabriel if he had anything illegal on his person or in his backpack and asked Gabriel for permission to check the backpack. Gabriel said “sure” and handed the backpack to Ledesma. Inside the backpack, the officer recovered a cell phone, a Magellan GPS unit, and an Apple iTouch. A pair of black leather gloves were located in Gabriel’s sweatshirt. Gabriel was transported to the San Bruno Police Department for a violation of the San Bruno juvenile curfew ordinance (San Bruno Mun. Code, § 6.12.040).
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charged Gabriel with unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)), tampering with a vehicle (id., § 10852), petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)), and prowling (id., § 647, subd. (h)). Gabriel filed a motion seeking suppression of all evidence and statements given to the police. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, finding the initial contact with the three minors to be consensual, and that a subsequent detention was justified by the facts then known to the officers. The court found the backpack search was pursuant to Gabriel’s voluntarily given consent. Gabriel admitted the charge of an unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, reduced to a misdemeanor. The other charges were dismissed. Gabriel was made a ward of the court and placed on probation in his parents’ home. He appeals denial of his motion to suppress.
II. DISCUSSION
While presenting no argument, appointed appellate counsel notes a question “ ‘that might arguably support the appeal’ ”: “Did the juvenile court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence because Gabriel was unlawfully detained when the incriminating items were discovered?” Obviously, counsel found no merit in this issue on her own review. We likewise find no merit.
In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress under section 1538.5, we “ ‘review[] the determination of the magistrate who ruled on the motion to suppress, drawing all presumptions in favor of the factual determinations of the magistrate, upholding the magistrate’s express or implied findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, and measuring the facts as found by the trier against the constitutional standard of reasonableness.’ [Citation.] ‘We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ ” (People v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1033.)
The trial court found the initial encounter with Gabriel was consensual. We agree. “[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.” (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.) No probable cause or reasonable suspicion was required to initiate this encounter. (Ibid.; In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 821.) “An officer has every right to talk to anyone he encounters while regularly performing his duties . . . .” (People v. Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1227.) A person is not detained simply because an officer approaches him and begins talking to him. “Until the officer asserts some restraint on the [person’s] freedom to move, no detention occurs.” (Ibid.) On the other hand, a detention occurs when the police, “ ‘by means of physical force or show of authority, [have] in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.’ ” (Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 U.S. 429, 434; People v. Kopatz (2015) 61 Cal.4th 62, 79.)
A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that “(1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity.” (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893; accord, People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299.) “ ‘Although a mere “ ‘hunch’ ” does not create reasonable suspicion, [citation], the level of suspicion the standard requires is “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,” and “obviously less” than is necessary for probable cause [citation].’ (Navarette v. California (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [134 S.Ct. 1683, 1687] . . . ; accord, [(People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224,] 229–231.) ‘[W]here a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, “the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances ‘in the proper exercise of the officer’s duties.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 981.)
The totality of circumstances warranted Gabriel’s detention. Here, the officer had a citizen’s report of three individuals looking into cars in a residential neighborhood in the early morning hours. He found Gabriel and his companions, matching the description given, leaning into a car in the parking lot of a closed park, less than 15 minutes after the initial report and about one-half mile away. After consensual contact, the officer learned that Gabriel was a 14-year-old minor, who was unable to identify either the friend who allegedly owned the car or the name or address of the friend he purportedly was going to visit at 3:00 a.m. The circumstances raised a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. “The public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances . . . .” (People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 390.)
No issues are presented as to Gabriel’s plea. We also find no arguable issue presented as to the dispositional order.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.





_________________________
BRUINIERS, J.


WE CONCUR:


_________________________
SIMONS, Acting P. J.


_________________________
NEEDHAM, J.